President Trump and The Civil Service: Day 1

On Jan. 20, 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States. Within hours of his inauguration, he began reshaping personnel policy. On Day 1, Trump took an array of personnel actions ranging from re-establishing “Schedule F” (now “Schedule Policy/Career”) to eliminating DEI programs to revoking security clearances for named intelligence officers.

Trump couched many of these orders in language evoking unitary executive theory—the constitutional theory that the Vesting Clause and Take Care Clause authorize the president to exert control over subordinates within the executive branch. Collectively, these actions enable the Trump administration to more easily politicize the ranks of the federal workforce and diminish its size.

Presidential Management of the Civil Service

I have detailed many of the personnel actions anticipated during the Trump administration elsewhere on Lawfare. Yet, discussion of the Day 1 actions warrants additional context. Presidential transitions often bring about changes to personnel policy. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 grants significant discretion to the president to manage the federal workforce. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have used this discretion to freeze hiring, freeze pay, reclassify employees, improve the federal government’s ability to recruit exceptional job candidates, among other things. Presidents often exercise this discretion through executive orders and memoranda. Although many executive orders are simply “press releases with nicer stationery,” orders affecting personnel policy often carry greater weight because the president possesses so much discretion under existing law. At the same time, these personnel actions are subject to judicial review and cannot violate either the Constitution or statutory law.

The actions taken by the Trump administration are a mixed bag. Some borrow from a traditional playbook employed by past presidents. Humdrum interference with the civil service may warrant criticism but such criticism could be levied against other presidents. What makes many of the Trump administration’s actions extraordinary is their willingness to evade existing statutory and regulatory requirements. The disregard for existing law will bring about significant legal challenges to many of these orders. It is my estimation that the Trump administration anticipates—and, in fact, wants—the opportunity to defend these decisions in court. Judicial review may invite sympathetic judges to reshape the Constitution in a way that expands Trump’s control over the federal workforce.

Schedule F Returns as Schedule Policy/Career

The most anticipated personnel action was the reinstatement of Schedule F. An order titled “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce” does just that. Toward the end of the first Trump administration, Trump issued Executive Order 13957, establishing a branch of the excepted service known as Schedule F. Most federal employees are classified in the “competitive service,” which requires a competitive, merit-based hiring process. Section 3302 authorizes the president to exempt positions from the competitive service “as nearly as conditions of good administration warrant.” Traditionally, positions in the excepted service receive similar tenure protections as positions in the competitive service but are not subject to the same hiring procedures.  

As initially conceived, Schedule F exempted positions of “a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” from the competitive service. The choice of language had meaningful consequences for the tenure protections afforded to these positions. Section 7511 exempts positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” from the traditional due-process procedures afforded to federal employees in the event of removal, suspension, or demotion. Moreover, these positions are exempted from Section 2302’s list of prohibited personnel practices, which includes the hiring, removal, suspension, or demotion of employees on partisan or political grounds. Effectively, positions within Schedule F are subject to “at-will” employment like many political appointees.

 The executive order reinstating Schedule F begins by echoing unitary executive theory. It opens, “Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law.” The order more-or-less reinstates the same version of Schedule F with a few meaningful changes. Notably, the order changes the name from “Schedule F” to “Schedule Policy/Career.”

The new order retains the expansive interpretation of “policy-making” positions contained in the original order. It defines “policy-making” positions to include mundane tasks, such as “viewing, circulating, or otherwise working with proposed regulations, guidance, executive orders, or other non-public policy proposals.” The new order also expands the definition to allow the Director of OPM to identify additional duties that “may be appropriate for inclusion in Schedule/Policy Career.” This discretion allows OPM to expand the reach of Schedule Policy/Career in the future. 

Implementation of the original Schedule F extended deep into the career workforce. Documents obtained by the National Treasury Employees Union showed that the Trump administration swept executive assistants, IT specialists, FOIA officers, economists, and scientists into Schedule F. Its expansive interpretation raises questions about whether Schedule Policy/Career violates the ordinary meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act. OPM must explain the rationale behind its decision to reclassify positions. Historically, Congress understood “policy-making” positions to only encompass noncareer, political appointees—not career employees who aid in drafting policy. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, OPM’s interpretation of the civil-service laws will not receive the same level of deference once afforded to federal agencies. Given the conflict between OPM’s interpretation and the historical meaning of “policy-making” positions, OPM will struggle to justify the reclassification of more mundane positions, such as executive assistants and IT professionals.

The executive order also orders OPM to repeal a Biden-era regulation designed to prevent the reinstatement of Schedule F. The OPM regulation defines the phrase “employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions” to mean noncareer, political appointments. It also grants individuals involuntarily moved to the excepted service the same protections they enjoyed while in the competitive service. While in effect, this provision prevents future administrations from reclassifying career staff as policy-making employees.

Beyond ordering repeal of this regulation, the order deems the regulation “inoperative and without effect.” This invites a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 553 of the APA requires agencies to use notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to repeal existing regulations. Moreover, the agency must explain its decision to repeal the regulations. Neither a president nor an agency can unilaterally repeal a regulation or render it “inoperative” without following the APA procedures. This is distinct from a simple case of non-enforcement because it affects the ongoing rights of career employees who may be reclassified to Schedule Policy/Career.

Moreover, the decision to involuntarily move employees from the competitive service to the excepted service raises due-process questions. The regulation creates a guarantee that employees will enjoy the protections afforded by the competitive service when they are involuntarily moved to the excepted service. Even absent the regulation, the D.C. Circuit has reached a similar conclusion. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, civil servants have a property interest in their continued employment and a right to procedural due process. Despite the exception in Section 7511, the Constitution may limit the ability of the executive branch to remove reclassified employees without due process.

One of the most notable additions to Schedule Policy/Career describes the expectations of federal employees in the implementation of the president’s policy agenda. The order specifies that individuals in these positions are “not required to personally or political support the current President or the policies of the current administration.” But the next sentence offers little reassurance. The order states that the failure to “faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President,” is “grounds for dismissal.”  The amorphous nature of “faithful[] implement[ation]” grants wide discretion for the executive branch to dismiss individuals perceived as undermining the president’s agenda. During the first Trump administration, appointees and career employees often came into conflict over factual issues related to science and math that did not support Trump’s proposed policies. Although some federal unions collectively bargained for guarantees related to scientific integrity, the new executive order should raise concerns for employees not covered by these agreements. Overall, this language reflects unitary executive theory’s guiding principle that the president must direct the policy activities of the executive branch.

Schedule Policy/Career will face significant legal challenges. The National Treasury Employees Union has already filed one such challenge, raising many of the statutory and constitutional arguments described here.

At-Will Removal of Career SES Employees

While Schedule Policy/Career further politicizes the competitive service, Trump has also tightened his control over the career Senior Executive Service (SES). SES positions are leadership positions that exercise important policy-making roles within federal agencies. These positions are exempted from the hiring requirements of the competitive service, but only 25 percent of an agency’s SES positions may be filled by noncareer appointees. Each fiscal year, OPM approves the number of noncareer SES positions that an agency may employ. Career SES positions are covered by Section 2302’s list of prohibited personnel practices and enjoy due-process protections from suspension and removal.

In a memorandum titled “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives,” the Trump administration ordered agency heads to remove career SES officials “whose performance or continued occupancy of the position is inconsistent with either the principles reaffirmed in this Order or their duties to the Nation under section 3131 of title 5.” Section 3131 sets out the general principles governing the SES.

The memo restructures oversight of the career SES by requiring agencies to adopt SES Performance Plans. Agency heads are encouraged to reassign SES positions to “ensure their knowledge, skills, abilities, and mission assignments are optimally aligned to implement [the president’s] agenda.” The order then states that “[a]ny agency head who becomes aware of an SES official whose performance or continued occupancy of the position is inconsistent with either the principles reaffirmed in this order . . . shall immediately take all appropriate actions, up to and including removal of that officials.” Nowhere does the order mention the traditional due-process protections afforded to career SES positions and whether the administration intends to adhere to those procedures.

The memo is notable for its strong use of unitary executive theory. It begins by quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the proposition that “the ‘executive Power’—all of it—is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” After quoting Seila Law, the memorandum states that, “[b]ecause SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President.” It continues, “If career SES officials fail to faithfully fulfill their duties to advance the needs, policies, and goals of the United States, the President must be able to rectify the situation and ensure that the entire Executive Branch faithfully executes the law.” The emphasis on the need to reassign SES positions based on the workforce’s ability to carry out Trump’s agenda further echoes presidential control of executive-branch policy-making.

The legality of this order hinges on its implementation. Nothing prohibits an agency from reviewing the performance of its employees or its officials. Poorly designed performance plans and metrics can have repercussions for program implementation. The central question is whether the administration believes the Constitution and this order allow the president to remove career SES—regardless of the statutory protections afforded by the Civil Service Reform Act.

Temporary Increases in Noncareer SES and Schedule C Appointments

While the major actions have made it easier to permanently politicize the federal workforce, other actions focus on temporary political appointees. In a memorandum, Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell loosened the requirements to appoint temporary noncareer SES and Schedule C employees.

Ordinarily, an agency must receive OPM approval to appoint someone to a noncareer SES position. Ezell’s memo temporarily delegates authority to agencies to make noncareer SES appointments “subject to the 25 percent or other applicable limit on noncareer appointments in the agency, which may be used for the time-limited noncareer appointment for no more than 30 days.” The memo states that “a Presidential nominee may receive a noncareer or limited term appointment to an SES position while awaiting Senate confirmation for the permanent position for which he/she is nominated.” While the appointee cannot serve in the position for which they are awaiting confirmation, this order allows the appointee to work within the agency in an advisory capacity.

OPM has traditionally issued a similar order during the presidential transition. The Ezell memo, however, appears to provide greater discretion than past memoranda. For example, in 2020, Acting OPM Director Michael Rigas authorized a temporary allocation of 5 Noncareer SES positions for cabinet-level agencies and 3 noncareer SES positions for non-cabinet level agencies. The 2017 memo had the same limitations and the Biden Administration issued a similar memo with the same limitations to facilitate Trump’s transition. The Ezell memo lacks this limitation and, therefore, temporarily expands noncareer SES positions to the maximum amount allowable by law.

Schedule C positions are political appointments in confidential or policy roles. Like SES positions, Schedule C positions are exempt from the competitive service. OPM must approve Schedule C appointments except following a presidential transition. OPM regulations allow agencies to hire “temporary transition Schedule C positions”  (TTC) in the “1-year period following a change in a presidential administration.” The number of TTC positions cannot exceed 50 percent of the agency’s permanent Schedule C positions unless OPM approves an increase in the agency’s quota to “meet a critical need or in unusual circumstances.”

OPM has traditionally reaffirmed the authority of agencies to appoint TTC positions following a presidential transition. Ezell, however, departs from past precedent by removing the 50 percent cap on TTCs because “the use of TTCs is necessary to drive the unusually expansive and transformative agenda the American people elected President Trump to accomplish.” It is difficult to imagine that the drafters of the regulations intended a presidential transition to qualify as an “unusual circumstance” because (1) the regulations only apply to presidential transitions and (2) every president enters office with a self-described “expansive and transformative agenda.”

Overall, the Ezell memo represents the sort of politicization that follows most presidential transitions. It does, however, remove traditional guardrails that limit the degree of politicization. In theory, this politicization is temporary. However, it may become permanent if the noncareer SES employees are reassigned to career positions under Section 3395.

Hiring and Firing

Other actions affected the hiring and firing of employees. Similar to an action taken during his first term, Trump froze the hiring of civil employees but permitted the Director of OPM to grant exemptions from the freeze. In addition, the memo orders OMB, OPM, and the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), to “recommend a long-term plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through attrition” within 90 days.

Subject to one exception, the hiring freeze expires upon the issuance of the plan to reduce the federal workforce. That exception concerns hiring within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The memo states that it “shall remain in effect for the IRS until the Secretary of the Treasury . . . determines that it is in the national interest to lift the freeze.” The restriction on IRS hiring is particularly notable in light of recent workforce trends. For the last decade, the IRS has suffered from a “brain drain” that has hindered its performance. The agency estimates that 37 percent of its workforce is eligible to retire within the next five years.  The hiring freeze will exacerbate these problems.

Shortly after the issuance of the order, OPM released a memo providing agencies with additional guidance. The memo exempts positions related to “immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety,” the Postal Service, seasonal employees, and some other positions. Indeed, in an order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” Trump instructs Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire additional agents and officers to enforce immigration laws. Customs and Border Patrol has struggled to recruit and retain agents because of its remote working locations and low morale. Yet a larger workforce will be necessary to carry out Trump’s extensive immigration agenda.

Presidents have long used executive orders to reduce the size of the federal workforce. President Bill Clinton ordered every agency with over 100 employees to eliminate not less than 4 percent of its civilian personnel position within three years. President George W. Bush chilled hiring by requiring agency heads to review and approve all hiring decisions. Trump’s order is consequential but not particularly unusual.

Over the course of the last few days, the Trump administration has fired a number of career employees or taken actions to encourage their voluntary departure. Four employees in the Executive Office of Immigration Review were fired without warning. The first-woman Commandant of the Coast Guard—Admiral Linda Lee Fagan—was fired for her “excessive focus” on diversity, equity, and inclusion. About 160 career National Security Council staffers were sent home and some had their emails disabled while pending a “full review of NSC personnel.” Entry-level attorneys hired through the Department of Justice Honors Program had their offers rescinded. At least twenty senior Department of Justice career employees were involuntarily reassigned. Depending on the precise position of these career employees, their reassignment may have been unlawful. Section 3395 prohibits an agency from reassigning a career SES appointee within 120 days after an appointment of the head of the agency.

A notable order titled “Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information” revokes the security clearance of 50 named intelligence officers for issuing a letter discrediting the story that Hunter Biden had abandoned his computer as Russian disinformation. It also orders the Director of National Intelligence to recommend further disciplinary action for these employees. Included in the executive order is Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton. At the same time, Trump unilaterally ordered that Executive Office of the President employees be granted interim Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearances.

Many of these adverse personnel decisions have obvious political overtones. While presidents can often remove political appointees, Section 2302 protects most career employees from adverse personnel actions based on political affiliation or belief.

The End of Remote Work?

Other orders focus less on hiring and firing and more on management of the workforce. One memorandum simply states that the heads of agencies “shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” The memo permits agency heads to “make exemptions they deem necessary.” The Trump administration has long believed that requiring employees to return to the office would trigger significant departures.

Like many other employers, the federal government relaxed its remote work policies during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Trump’s memo is not the first effort to force federal employees to return to the office. In April 2023, OMB issued a memorandum instructing federal agencies to “substantially increase meaningful in-person work in Federal offices.”

Despite concerns with telework, these actions overstate the problems that remote work causes for the federal government. A statement issued by the White House following the inauguration claimed that “only 6% of employees currently work in person.” It is unclear where the White House found this statistic. According to a 2024 report from OMB, 54 percent of the civilian workforce (1.2 million employees) works fully on-site because their job requires them to be physically present during all working hours. Only 46.4 percent of the civilian workforce (1.1 million employees) is even telework-eligible. Even then, these telework employees spend over 61.2 percent of their working hours in-person. A Congressional Budget Office report showed that federal employees have returned to in-person work faster than private-sector employees. Concerns over telework appear more symbolic than substantive.

Section 6502 requires agencies to “establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may be authorized to telework.” The agency is required to “ensure that telework does not diminish employee performance or agency operations.” Beyond having a policy, nothing statutorily requires an agency to offer telework to its employees. OPM’s memo implementing the order requires agency heads to revise the section 6502 plan “to state that eligible employees must work full time at their respective duty stations unless excused due to disability, qualifying medical condition, or other compelling reason certified by the agency head.”

Nevertheless, some federal unions have collectively bargained for telework guarantees. For example, the American Federation of Government Employees’ agreement ensures that most Social Security Administration employees are allowed to partially telework through 2029.  Federal unions would bring any efforts to violate these agreements before the Federal Labor Relations Board.

DEIA and Gender

On the campaign trail, Trump often attacked diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility (DEIA) programs as illegal. Several orders focus on DEI programs within the executive branch. Trump’s federal hiring plan instructs OMB, OPM, and DOGE to “prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion.” An order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” revokes prior executive orders related to DEIA programs. An order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” instructs OMB and OPM to “coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.” It also orders agencies to end “environmental justice” offices and positions. It extends this requirement to “existing Federal employment practices, union contracts, and training policies or programs.” 

OPM was fast to implement the order. All employees in DEIA offices were placed on leave on January 22nd. OPM instructed all agencies to prepare a “written plan for executing a reduction-in-force action regarding the employees who work in a DEIA office.” OPM also instructed agencies to send an email to all employees, which claimed that the federal government’s DEIA programs “divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and resulting in shameful discrimination.” The email instructed employees to disclose efforts by agencies to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.”

Although Trump’s orders emphasize merit as the sole qualification for hiring, preference-based hiring has a long history in the federal government. Section 2108 affords veterans and their families preference in competitive hiring. The Trump administration has not expressed a desire to end veteran preferences, and an OPM memo has reaffirmed that “hiring of veterans shall be prioritized.” Whether veterans preference diminishes the merit of the federal service is subject of scholarly debate.

A different order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” has implications for the management of personnel. The order states that it is the policy of the United States to “recognize two sexes, male and female.” The order applies broadly to federal programs but affects personnel policy by directing OPM to “ensure that applicable personnel records accurately report Federal employees’ sex.” The order will affect thousands of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex federal employees. Over 15,000 transgender individuals work for the military alone.

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Since the election, scholars have anticipated that the newly-created DOGE would play an instrumental role in developing Trump’s management agenda. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—the de facto leaders of DOGE—explained their plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce. An order titled “Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’” lays out the structure of DOGE. The order also requires each agency to establish a team of four employees—a team lead, an engineer, a human resources specialist, and an attorney—to advise the agency on implementation of the DOGE agenda. A separate order instructs OMB, OPM, and DOGE to establish a federal hiring plan that “brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.”

Prior to Trump’s inauguration, some believed that DOGE would operate as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA). FACA requires advisory committees to have balanced viewpoints and adhere to certain transparency requirements, including public meetings. Ultimately, Trump did not establish DOGE as an advisory committee. Instead, the order renames an existing agency—the United States Digital Service—as the United States DOGE Service. President Obama established the Digital Service within OMB by executive action in 2014. The Digital Service was tasked with improving the federal government’s use of technology. Although the DOGE agenda expands beyond technology, Trump’s order appears to maintain the original goal of modernizing federal technology.

Separate lawsuits from Public Citizen, the American Public Health Association, and the National Security Counselors preemptively challenged DOGE under FACA. Given the decision to place DOGE within the Executive Office of the President, these lawsuits likely fail. Nevertheless, DOGE remains subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The order seems to envision that most of the DOGE agenda will be implemented by a temporary organization known as the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Section 3161 permits the president to establish a temporary organization for a period of three years to perform a specific study or project. In this case, the order envisions that DOGE will complete its work within 18 months. The statute authorizes the head of the temporary organization to staff the agency in a myriad of ways. The head may appoint employees within the excepted service. They may request that heads of other agencies detail employees to the temporary organization. They also may also accept volunteer services from advisors, experts, or any person performing services “in any other capacity determined appropriate by the head of the temporary organization.” Accordingly, traditional hiring requirements will not pose a problem for DOGE.

The order also authorizes agencies to hire special government employees (SGE) for their DOGE teams. An SGE is a temporary employee who works with or without compensation for a period of less than 130 days. The federal government employs few SGEs. Subject to some exceptions, SGEs must obey government ethics laws. If the employee works more than 60 days annually, they are subject to the standard financial reporting requirements and conflict-of-interest requirements. But SGEs are subject to relaxed conflict-of-interest requirements related to government grants and contracting. The enforcement of any ethics requirements, however, depends on the willingness of government watchdogs to investigate suspected violations. Given the relaxed requirements, SGE positions raise greater concerns about conflicts of interest compared to career employees.

Although Ramaswamy has left DOGE to run for governor of Ohio, questions remain as to Elon Musk’s role and whether he will formally lead DOGE. The order states that “[t]here shall be a USDS Administrator established in the Executive Office of the President who shall report to the White House Chief of State” but does not specify the appointment structure for the administrator. It also does not name an administrator. Speculation suggests that DOGE will hire Musk as an SGE. Other appointments support this theory. David Sacks—co-founder of Paypal—will reportedly be appointed as an SGE while serving as the “White House AI and Crypto Czar.” If Musk works more than 60 days, he will be subject to financial reporting requirements. Alternatively, Musk may serve as a “volunteer” for the DOGE Service Temporary Organization.

Ultimately, DOGE only possesses the power to persuade. It cannot issue regulations or adjudicate employment disputes. Any policy changes will need to come from OPM and the agencies themselves.

Thinning Government by Politicizing and Demoralizing the Federal Workforce

The Trump administration’s overall intent is clear: Increase presidential control over the federal civil service. Many of the orders use lofty constitutional rhetoric to suggest that the president’s ability to faithfully execute the law requires complete control over federal employees. Some of the orders rely on questionable interpretations of statutes and regulations, suggesting that Trump may be leaning heavily on constitutional politics.

Having read these orders, I am left with the impression that the Trump administration is goading federal employees and unions to sue. Why? At least some judges are amenable to the idea that the civil-service system violates Article II. In Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit said, “In an appropriate case, we should consider whether laws that limit the President's power to remove Executive Branch employees are consistent with the vesting of executive power exclusively in the President.” By inviting this challenge, the Trump administration may win constitutional authority over the federal workforce, dealing a crippling blow to the civil-service system. 

There is no question that the federal workforce could be improved. Indeed, a few of the ideas contained within Trump’s federal hiring plan even have merit:

• “[P]rioritize recruitment of individuals committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution;”
• “[D]ecrease government-wide time-to-hire to under 80 days;”
• “[I]mprove communication with candidates to provide greater clarity regarding application status, timelines, and feedback, including regular updates on the progress of applications and explanations of hiring decisions where appropriate;”
• “[I]ntegrate modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process, including the use of data analytics to identify trends, gaps, and opportunities in hiring, as well as leveraging digital platforms to improve candidate engagement.”

  Nevertheless, the overall tenor of these actions speaks to valuing loyalty—not public service. Granted, the concepts of upholding the Constitution and pledging loyalty to the president’s agenda may be difficult to disentangle if one believes in a unitary executive.

The politicization of the federal workforce will pose significant problems for morale and, ultimately, retention. Mark Richardson has shown that perceptions of politicization increase the likelihood that civil servants leave office and decrease their willingness to invest time and energy into building expertise. Trump unquestionably intends for his rhetoric and orders to have that effect.